Discussing the most relevant "sequels" or "reminders" of 9/11. The so-called "War On Terror" is a global scam finalized to manipulate this world's population with crass fear-mongering tactics designed to scare you shitless.

Cobra Commander wrote:I can't believe I didn't think of this before when discussing the fake photo wall with Noah Pozner. There are 6 photos with quotes on them, and five of them are written in English. I'm sure we are all aware that English is not their first language in Pakistan. This proves that this was propaganda aimed at westerners.

I know that & you know that but for the hoax-deniers it is apparently perfectly normal for Pakistani memorials & 'angry protests' to feature obviously western aimed photo's.

Every single photo you just posted makes me face palm and cringe about how naive westerners are. I bet most of the people in the photos have no clue what the sign they're holding up says. Especially the little girl in the middle of the second pic with the sad face banner. She looks confused as hell.

The slogans sound like horror b-movie poster slogans too.

"Sandy Hook 2 : They Went to School and Never Come Back"

"Columbine Part 12: The Smallest Coffins are the Heaviest"

The body count is always bigger in the sequels. The script writers to these psy-ops are probably b-movie writers.

Critical Mass wrote:As I've been saying there's nothing amazing or advanced about the techniques they use... they clearly make lots of mistakes.

I do hope that they are mistakes, as a result of poor control, but I doubt it. Their overall quantity and blatant nature suggests more to me bait, or conjurer misdirection.

Note again how very aligned these pictures are, to each-other, and to the apparent flat-depth canvas that is supposedly evoked by the 'photographer'. The placards within every shot are remarkably uncurled/untorn/untwisted, held with a stubborn semi-robotic precision. Is there ever any feel of a human field photographer having wrangled/cajoled/shouted all the contributory elements into a conjunction of desired output? No. Not in the least. Try following the eye-line of the photo subjects. Does it ever concur, giving credence as to some implied actual physical lens point? Not that I can see.

This looks far too much like clumsy construction, reusable imagery elements, surreal content. But if it is genuinely intended just to convey a message, as a tool of propaganda, that conduit itself should not be so perceptibly false, as often, nor in so many disparate locations and instances

icarusinbound wrote:I do hope that they are mistakes, as a result of poor control, but I doubt it. Their overall quantity and blatant nature suggests more to me bait, or conjurer misdirection...

... But if it is genuinely intended just to convey a message, as a tool of propaganda, that conduit itself should not be so perceptibly false, as often, nor in so many disparate locations and instances

Again, it seems to me, that people who give these perps far too much credit have the the same issues...

(i) They fail to mention that such obvious errors are a continual & historical feature of psyops

(ii) They fail to mention that very few people have the ability to spot these errors... the Nuke test videos have fooled the whole world since the 1940's... only until ~2006 did the first suspicions began to emerge. There are huge numbers of intelligent people out there who still think buildings really explodilapsed on 9/11. They don't see what we see. They can't see it. Perception is an active process.... it's a skill.

(iii) They fail to remember the time that they themselves fell for such crass tales & horrid imagery.

(iv) They fail to mention better possible explanations for why there's such 'poor' (again to our eyes only) quality control i.e. it could be the result of a relatively small pool of perp operators or bored in jokes or it was thought that a little absurdity helps sell 'Big Lies'? Utter contempt? Perhaps the result of some internal bureaucracy or an effect of tight compartmentalization? Bad management? Demotivated or uninterested workers? Too much coke the night before? Or perhaps it's something as simple as even the perps don't have our perceptive skills!

Why must the only possible explanation be some variation of "those wonderful perps are trying to wake us up"?

Critical Mass wrote:Again, it seems to me, that people who give these perps far too much credit have the the same issues...

(i) They fail to mention that such obvious errors are a continual & historical feature of psyops

(ii) They fail to mention that very few people have the ability to spot these errors... the Nuke test videos have fooled the whole world since the 1940's... only until ~2006 did the first suspicions began to emerge. There are huge numbers of intelligent people out there who still think buildings really explodilapsed on 9/11. They don't see what we see. They can't see it. Perception is an active process.... it's a skill.

(iii) They fail to remember the time that they themselves fell for such crass tales & horrid imagery.

(iv) They fail to mention better possible explanations for why there's such 'poor' (again to our eyes only) quality control i.e. it could be the result of a relatively small pool of perp operators or bored in jokes or it was thought that a little absurdity helps sell 'Big Lies'? Utter contempt? Perhaps the result of some internal bureaucracy or an effect of tight compartmentalization? Bad management? Demotivated or uninterested workers? Too much coke the night before? Or perhaps it's something as simple as even the perps don't have our perceptive skills!

Why must the only possible explanation be some variation of "those wonderful perps are trying to wake us up"?

Bravo, CM.

The most extraordinary thing about "the perps" is their shamelessness and overconfidence.

Critical Mass wrote:Why must the only possible explanation be some variation of "those wonderful perps are trying to wake us up"?

What I discussed before about the possibility of perps trying to wake people up is just one of many possibilities why they obviously purposely used Noah Pozner again in another psy-op. It does make it easier for someone like myself to prove media fakery to the people who cannot see yet by pointing out this kid died twice. Of course, it could be just a joke like you said. It could be something to keep Sandy Hook Truthers researching the same old tired subject. It could be subliminal trauma triggering, etc... The only way to get to the answer is to ask ourselves these questions until we can narrow down the motive.

I do not give the perps much credit. I do not believe their technology is that more advanced than what the common person has access to, contrary to how powerful they want us to believe they are.

Since Soto's death the family haven't just had to contend with their loss. On a daily basis they receive hate-filled messages on social media, from a small group of people who say the fatal shooting spree didn't really happen.

Since Soto's death the family haven't just had to contend with their loss. On a daily basis they receive hate-filled messages on social media, from a small group of people who say the fatal shooting spree didn't really happen.

So let's trademark a fake entity. Or an "idea"? Stop being so self-righteous, Soto family. The mean internet picks on all bs stories, not just your precious Vicki.

Fair point Hoi. Either the two children labelled have identical twins who wore exactly the same thing, or some of the children were evacuated twice, or these photo's are only pretending to illustrate the evacuation of two different groups of children. Larger versions below.

Has anyone seen the following? The only parts I found new or interesting are from 00:07.17 to 00:19.53 and 00:36:06 to 47:33 and 02:21.00 - 02:46.00. I think there is definite gatekeeping here as they don't look at any of the available image analysis in relation to portraits etc and don't consider the media fakery in any detail. That and at least one of the reporters in the video is linked to Jim Fetzer. I'm not sure whether any or even some of the information contained within it is correct, but a lot of it was new to me.

As per Hoi's request I'll summarise the parts of the above video that seemed interesting to me.

00:07.17 to 00:19.53Looks at the backgrounds of many of those involved in the Sandy Hook Hoax starting with the parents and how since the event they've become full-time promotors of gun control, mental health checks and orwellian security systems and changes to school curricula.

Video claims Francine Lobis-Wheeler, alleged mother of Ben Wheeler is a former assistant to Maureen White, the finance chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. Maureen White is married to Steven Ratner and both are members of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). Ratner is linked to NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg who is pro gun control though a personal relationship and his role as manager of Bloombergs' funds. Francine is an actor and singer who had a voice role in the animated film/porn "mutant aliens." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutant_Aliens Her husband David starred in the short film "Faithful" in 2001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApGeMSeN4zY (link to film; contains references to suicide). Francine became the first person other than Obama and Biden to given the Presidential Weekly address (April 13, 2013; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Mlqsp5BF8. The video goes on link other supposed family members to the entertainment industry and discusses how they're promoting the aforementioned agendas.

00:36:06 to 47:33Discusses the changes made to Connecticut legislation through the introduction and passage of Public Act 13-311 proposed by the Governor and State Prosecutors' in conjunction with the Sandy Hook Families. This statute allows law-enforcement agencies to decline the release of death certificates, 911 calls, photographs and other crime-scene information for all Homicides in the state. The task force bill also makes unauthorized copying of a public document (with a cellphone camera, for example) a crime.

One shouldn't get drawn too much into things such as this especially as 'Boy#1' in both pictures has a different hair style and the 'motif' on the front of his top is different.'Boy#2' could possibly pass as the same.